There are two cases(DOMA and Proposition 8) to be heard by the SCOTUS this session.

At the base of the question is do gay Americans have the same rights as heterosexual Americans? And if so, do they need their constitutional rights protected at the federal level.

I've never had an openly gay friend, co-worker or family member. I did coach a little league baseball team. On that team I had a player with two Mom's. The players and the parents accepted the kid of the two Mom's as any other player. The other parents let their kids go over to the two Mom's house for sleepovers etc. It wasn't a factor to consider in the slightest.

I don't have any personal experience to know what rights is actually being denied. However, I believe that for whatever reason they were born that way. It's not a choice. You can't pray it out of them. You can't give them therapy and turn them into heterosexuals. They are what they are naturally and we should just accept them.

IMHO, the government/city/state/society have no right to tell it's citizens what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. some of our citizens who they can and who they can't love. Who they can and can't marry. History will not be kind to the discrimination of gays, with cause. It's time to end this era of gay discrimination.

The SC has a long history of precedent leaving moral issues to community standards.

Playboys, conduct in strip clubs, blue laws [ie, days and number of hours per day spirits can be sold, methods of alcohol distribution [government stores, dedicated liquor stores only, no convenience stores, etc.].

__________________
Hunter Pence has no opinion on Lena Dunham's attractiveness.

Besides, all gay people can have children. Lesbians can be impregnated, gays can have their children birthed for them, or adopt.

This is your argument, though? This is the difference between gay marriage and black marriage? Baby making?

Like I said, I'm pro marriage equality, but as a matter of the legal standard there is a difference that can be used to argue a state interest.

The trends on this issue are clear. Within a few years this issue will be resolved, and it will be a more durable change and better for our national culture as well as the SCOTUS if its done through ballots and not by judges.

__________________
Homer: [looking at watch] Two hours? Why'd they build this ghost town so far away?
Lisa: Because they discovered gold over there!
Homer: It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything.

The problem is that you need a compelling interest to overcome strict scrutiny.

No such compelling interest exists.

I agree the argument I presented wouldn't withstand strict scrutiny, but the court has been wary about applying that standard to issues other than race, and as far as I know do not apply it to issues of sexual orientation.

__________________
Homer: [looking at watch] Two hours? Why'd they build this ghost town so far away?
Lisa: Because they discovered gold over there!
Homer: It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything.